John Jeffrey Murray, 51, is either a fanatical anti-smoker or a reckless hoser. A court will have to decide. Murray was charged with drenching his wife with a garden house for smoking in the house and then wrestling away a phone when she tried to call the police.
Murray insisted in a statement to police that this was merely as matter of “overspray” and that he did not intend to drench his wife. He also elbowed his wife in a struggle to hang up the phone. He was charged with domestic battery.
For the flip side of a case of smokers attacking critical anti-smokers, click here.
For the full story, click here.
Clearly battery. Intent to not hit his wife is not relevant.
Self defense. She was battering him with the cigarette smoke, and he was simply defending himself.
I have zero sympathy for smokers, druggies, and alcoholics. She smoked in the house, and is violating his rights to clean air. They should take it as an accident, and stop wasting time on rights of a smoker.
Not self defense. He was not in imminent danger. Also, this was presumably not the first time she smoked inside the house, so he was on notice.
Are you f’n kidding me?
My god; what would the penalty be if he pushed her in the pool?
(the foregoing assumes the wife can swim)
This is not acceptable. This woman is a victim of violence by her husband. It should not be justified or dismissed. This is precisely the attitude which encourages domestic violence.
He is an adult man. He has many choices in this situation, one of which is to leave the home himself and talk with her about it in a neutral location. Instead he chose to harm his wife.
A spouse need not tolerate the smoke of their spouse. It’s called divorce, a civil action. One might hope that a couple would try coming to a verbal agreement on this issue first. It is disrespectful to ignore your partner’s wishes about smoking. The smoke is a real health problem. If a spouse will not respect another spouse, the answer is not violence, it is discussion, with the next step being, leaving.
It worries me that people are comfortable with seeing a woman humiliated and hit by her husband. We need to quit accepting these things in this society.
Yes, exactly, what Jill said.
NPO 1, June 30, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I have zero sympathy for smokers, druggies, and alcoholics. She smoked in the house, and is violating his rights to clean air. They should take it as an accident, and stop wasting time on rights of a smoker.
*******************************
I have no sympathy for people who have no sympathy for people with problems. You want clean air, call the Truman Show.
lottakatz 1, June 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Yes, exactly, what Jill said.
Double that. Where is Buddha and FF LEO?
Yes, Jill.
I think the man needs Al-anon. Al Franken is a member of Al-anon. He is open about it. His wife Frannie is open about her alcoholism.
SwMom,
You might be right. Had to get a new phone and all numbers fried. Can you have ET call me?
I don’t think I will see her before I leave for Boulder on Thursday, but I will call her.
Well thank you. Are you gonna take me to Boulder too? I promise to be me.
AY, SM,
Don’t you two have each-others contact info? Not to intrude, but the fact that my post is intruding is mildly annoying.
That being said, take Co-119 North to Longmont (don’t speed, there’s always cops) take a left on Sunset, then a right on Boston Immediately after you cross over the river Left hand Brewery will be on your right.
Everything’s good (I’d avoid the 300 lb Monkey if it’s still on tap in the tasting room, it’s a good beer, but the other stuff if better). Their Oktoberfest is a good place to start.
Gyges 1, June 30, 2009 at 7:49 pm
AY, SM,
Don’t you two have each-others contact info? Not to intrude, but the fact that my post is intruding is mildly annoying.
********************************
Sorry dude, did not see that you had posted here before now. Are you asking us to exchange contact info so be it. If you are asking me to a bar what kinda food do they have? If you want a recipe for a cake go back a month or too. If you don’t want me to post this typpe of stuff, no problem. Just say so.
Thanks for the tip but I no longer consume alcohol. I am more interested in a mountain hike. Now you might get the connection with AY.
” I have no sympathy for people who have no sympathy for people with problems.” …. Anonymously Yours
I have zero sympathy for people who create their own problems, and then act like victims. They need to take responsibilities for their actions and correct it. I know some like to blame it on genetics and it is partly true, but the behavior is not entirely directed by genetics– they are just weak and lazy, and don’t want to put up any efforts.
NPO 1, June 30, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I have zero sympathy for people who create their own problems, and then act like victims.
This statement I can agree with.
They need to take responsibilities for their actions and correct it.
I agree with this statement as well.
I know some like to blame it on genetics and it is partly true, but the behavior is not entirely directed by genetics– they are just weak and lazy, and don’t want to put up any efforts.
This statement I totally Disagree with. Some people are predisposed to have cancer and some faiths agree that faith can heal the cancer, do you have that type of faith? Do you agree with that?
Some people with substance abuse that earnestly try and quit are they still weak to you?
What about the ones that have a slip? Which I don’t believe in as a slip is a calculated opportunity drink. Which makes them weak in your book.
Have you ever obsessed over something and knowing it is not good for you but you choose the easier softer way? Do you feel that people who are over weight, can lose all of the weight that they want if they just regulate the intake?
I think you need to look at that story about that city Attorney sleeping in the garbage can and restate what you feel. My heart goes out to him. Does yours? Is he weak to you?
This type of person has no sympathy for addicts or alcoholics unless their children become afflicted.Then, they are forced by a treatment center to learn about it. Often they are what Dr Jane Brody referred to as the “high functioning alcoholic”.They are narrow minded, immature and lack the ability to feel empathy. They are not worth arguing with.
SWMom,
I think you are correct. Some people never can understand another persons point of view, so maybe that is why they have reincarnation, you keep coming back over and over and over in the opportunity to learn.
” Some people are predisposed to have cancer and some faiths agree that faith can heal the cancer, do you have that type of faith? Do you agree with that? ”
No and no.
“Some people with substance abuse that earnestly try and quit are they still weak to you?”
They are better than those who don’t try at all. It is not what they do to themselves that concerns me, it is what their actions do to society that concerns me.
“Have you ever obsessed over something and knowing it is not good for you but you choose the easier softer way? Do you feel that people who are over weight, can lose all of the weight that they want if they just regulate the intake?”
Yes, I obsess over chocolate from time to time, but firstly, I don’t let it affect me in any way ( by not becoming overweight or binging, etc) and secondly, my occasional weakness to chocolate does not harm the society in any shape.
People who are overweight just eat too much. When I walk in a supermarket and see an obese individual and see all that food in their carts, I am like …huh!? It is their fault- they eat too much. ( Obviously I do not include overweight individuals who have a medical reason for their condition)
“I think you need to look at that story about that city Attorney sleeping in the garbage can and restate what you feel. My heart goes out to him. Does yours? Is he weak to you?”
Part of me felt sorry for him, but I can easily imagine that guy on the road, endangering other’s lives while drunk. So, how should I feel?
NPO,
How do you tell who has the medical condition? What about the person that has COPD and has a Parking Pass that is still smoking?
Do you shoot him because he has taken the parking spot from someone that really needs it?
NPO sounds like a bore.
AY,
Question is, do I need to know who has a medical condition or not? Why are Americans the fattest in the world? I hope you don’t think that there is a highly disproportionate number of medical reasons for obesity in America!
Irresponsible people do not deserve any passes, parking or not.
NPO Many times compulsive over eaters eat because of abuse. We do live in a country with a tremendous amount of child and spousal abuse. Understanding addiction is too deep for you. Forget it.
Swarthmore mom,
I guess you are now suggesting that Americans are the most abused in the world! Play the victim, why not? That’ll solve the problem!
NPO,
I think that what I am trying to say is that the faces of a lot of people look regular. Unless you can get inside of these peoples heads you will never know what is going on. The old adage goes like this “You Can’t Judge a Book by its Cover”.
Do yourself a favor and visit a nursing home. There are a lot of people out there that do not have families that come and see them. Maybe you can make a difference in one persons life, do you think you can make the time? And get back to me.
This is ridiculous.
Unless you can show the husband intended to harm the wife with the elbow to the mouth, as opposed to it being an accidental result of struggling for the phone to avoid a patently frivolous 911 call over the use of a garden hose, I’m afraid you don’t have a claim for ‘domestic abuse.’
Jesus H. Christ, even the Brady Bunch sprayed each other with a garden hose!
Bob,
If the husband feels his wife is making a frivoulous call he should first ask her not to call the police. She then could have told him she was calling a friend and the problem should have been solved. Had she in fact called the police he should wait for them to come and explain his side of the story. He has NO right to wrestle a phone from his wife’s hands. If he did this to a stranger you would know it was wrong. Because this person is his wife does not make the action right. We don’t do this at our workplace when we disagree with a co-worker’s actions. If we did this in a public space, for example, to someone who was sitting next to us at a baseball game, we would be open to arrest and charges. Actions are actions. Marriage doesn’t immunize actions that would otherwise be considered illegal. Remember, he is an adult male with many, many choices in this situation. His first and best choice would have been to leave the scene and arrange to speak to his wife about not smoking in their home. He chose instead, humiliation and violence. This is both immature and worse, it is ethically and legally wrong.
Jill: “Had she in fact called the police he should wait for them to come and explain his side of the story. He has NO right to wrestle a phone from his wife’s hands.”
Yes he does Jill; just as he’d have the right to wrestle her hand from pulling a fire alarm when there was no fire.
Jill, have you considered refraining from imbuing the situation with facts and issues having nothing to do with the original event?
Is spraying someone with a garden hose a crime? Is it assault? How many children or adults are arrested each year for “assault with water via a garden hose?”
Per your ‘humiliation’ argument; perhaps you’d have more traction if the man was white, the woman was black, the man professed outwardly that black people are worth less than white people, AND the man used a FIRE HOSE.
Other than that, I stand by my original focus; i.e. no domestic assault unless man intended to use elbow to assault wife irrespective of phone.
Bob,
If you went to a restaurant where someone was smoking illegally outside on the patio and you picked up the garden hose and sprayed them with it, do you think they might call the police? If they started to call the police, would you run over and knock the phone from their hand? If so, might you expect to be arrested for this action, even if you did not accidently hit the person in the mouth while you were knocking the phone from your hand? If you had accidently hit the person in the mouth while grabbing their phone would you expect the police to charge you?
I have asthma and I have been around people who light up at resturants. This is completely illegal in my city. I did not need to resort to spraying them with a garden hose or wrestling phones from their hands to resolve this issue and neither did this man. You are justifying violence because it occurs in the context of marriage–a context where too many in our society believe violence is acceptable. It is not. There is no difference between the actions described in this story and the actions I described at a restaurant. It would be consider an assult in a public place and it is an assult at the home of these people.
AY,
There’s a time and a place for private exchanges. I personally don’t think that this is the forum for exchanging small talk like you and SWM were doing. I’m sure others agree. I’m not going to make a big deal about it, I probably won’t even mention it again.
I just wanted you to know my opinion on the matter.
Jill: “If you went to a restaurant where someone was smoking illegally outside on the patio and you picked up the garden hose and sprayed them with it, do you think they might call the police? If they started to call the police, would you run over and knock the phone from their hand?”
Jill, you do know that you’ve just changed the entire factual background of the event described above simply to fit your conclusion; don’t you?
Honestly Jill, do you think a cop or a court would allow you to make such a comparison between events in making your argument? Where in the original fact pattern are the third party liability issues, the premises liability issues, etc.?
TOTALLY different situation.
I don’t know whether the man’s behavior meets the legal definition of assault, but from a moral and ethical perspective Jill is 100% correct. The lack of respect this man showed for his wife is simply inexcusable. It would be the same if she was the one who’d sprayed him. If he wouldn’t have sprayed a stranger for smoking, then he should’ve given the same minimum amount of respect to his wife. He doesn’t get to treat her like a dog just because she’s his wife.
And he certainly has no right to prevent her from calling the police. Whether she’s right or wrong in making the call, he doesn’t have the authority to prevent her doing so. She doesn’t need to seek his permission to call the police.
If he sprayed her because he was angry, then it looks like assault to my non-lawyerly eyes. If he did it because he thought it would be funny, it looks like he’s an ass. I certainly know my wife well enough to understand what she would think was funny and what she wouldn’t. Just judging from what we know, this man looks like the sort who thinks it’s his right as a husband to put his wife (chattel) in her place for disobeying him. I grew up with a father who did that sort of things to my mother and have tolerance for it. Nor should any civilized person.
Since this all took place in Florida (and this is a legal site) take a look at the state criminal laws:
784.011 Assault,
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0784/SEC011.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0784->Section%20011#0784.011
784.03 Battery; felony battery.
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0784/SEC03.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0784->Section%2003#0784.03
784.041 Felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation.–
(1) A person commits felony battery if he or she:
(a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and
(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.
(2)(a) A person commits domestic battery by strangulation if the person knowingly and intentionally, against the will of another, impedes the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of a family or household member or of a person with whom he or she is in a dating relationship, so as to create a risk of or cause great bodily harm by applying pressure on the throat or neck of the other person or by blocking the nose or mouth of the other person. This paragraph does not apply to any act of medical diagnosis, treatment, or prescription which is authorized under the laws of this state.
(b) As used in this subsection, the term:
1. “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in s. 741.28.
2. “Dating relationship” means a continuing and significant relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
(3) A person who commits felony battery or domestic battery by strangulation commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0784/SEC041.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0784->Section%20041#0784.041
In brief, the assault is the threat, and the battery is the intentional touching of the person against his or her will. Assuming the facts described by JT, there was a misdemeanor battery under Florida law, and probably an assault. There are also the civil torts of assault and battery to consider.
Take notes, 1L students. This will be on the exam.
Bob,
The only change that I can think of that you mean is the smoking was illegal in the restaurant and not at the home. So I’ve been in this situation where it was not illegal. Please take everything I wrote about the restaurant and take out the illegal aspect of it. The result is still the same. The only material difference is that you consider a man harming his wife acceptable but would not consider this same man’s treatment acceptable towards a stranger. That isn’t right. Everything Ken pointed out is completely germaine to this event.
No autopsy or hospitalization, no foul, and apparently, no sense of humor either. Sprayed with water, not beat with the hose. Keep a little perspective. Unless she’s the Wicked Witch of the West, she’ll recover with the aid of a towel or a strong breeze – made whole by capillary attraction and evaporation, no cops or judge required. Respect is earned, not due. That applies to everyone, married or not. Everyone involved should take a deep breath and stop taking themselves so seriously. Get back to me if this scenario arises again and he decides to put out the cigarette by forcing the hose down her throat – that’s be a real crime. This? This is extra paperwork for the cops and courts caused by ego intersecting stupidity. A waste of resources and time.
Mr. Murray has a serious problem, a perceived need to control the actions of his wife, using violence if necessary. A common attitude and a common result. He is an abuser. She needs to get the hell out. Neither of them recognizes the obvious.
Bob and Jill have both presented good arguments that enable us all to obtain alternate perspectives.
I think it was the bloody lip that resulted in arrest.
Water from a garden hose presents no more physical threat than does a rain shower.
This was a juvenile act that promoted more juvenile acts.
As such, I think they both needed a “time out”.
–If the old man in the neighborhood turned on the sprinkler to deter the kids from walking across his lawn; would anyone expect him to be charged with assault? Those that say yes, I think, have become too litigious. –No if doing so resulted in damage to a suede jacket, he may be held liable for the damage; although the kids may have been trespassing.
The “full story” doesn’t provide us with enough information to make an informed decision. How did the sheriff’s dept. end up being notified? Has his wife ever sprayed him with the hose? Is that something people that live in a warm climate consider to be “acceptable”? Was she wearing a bathing suit? Did he overreact? Did she overreact? Were both parties laughing when the wrestle for the phone ensued? Was the only real damage (the split lip) accidental? Was she really going to call a friend? Does her friends number start with 91?
I have no tolerance for spousal abuse…in either direction. Respect goes both ways. She should not smoke in the house, and he should not spray her with a hose.
I think this was originally much a “dew” about nothing.
Jill, have you considered refraining from imbuing the situation with facts and issues having nothing to do with the original event?
—
Thank you, Bob. I noticed just last night that Mike A inquired recently what my issues are with Jill since my responses are,
otherwise, ‘intelligent’. This is one of ‘em, for sure!
More later – when I have a few moments.
As for the ‘assault’ question, without knowing all the facts, I only wish I could completely agree with you there. You have NO idea how much
Unfortunately, now that the police and the courts are involved, this situation will likely escalate between these two.
I just hope they are both prepared!
And Gyges, I support your request that AY and SM Text or IM each other if they want to chat rather than take up limited list space available for identifying poster’s responses.
Mike, Jill, et al.,
I think the issue here may be definitional. What constitutes violence as an acceptable threshold for triggering the involvement of the cops and courts? As Patty pointed out, once they are involved, the matter will only get more heated and contentious. I just don’t consider getting wet an attack meriting police response. Maybe some marriage counseling, but it’s hardly a case for SWAT. It was a garden hose. It’s not like he had a fire hose as that would be battery of the first order. As it was, she got wet and decided to what? Call the cops? Yeah. I’ll bet a dollar that alcohol had something to do with that decision tree or the one that led to the spray down. Either way, it shows a level of self-importance that’s simply staggering. Is he a charmer? No, not at all, but this is a exercise in overreaction from ALL parties. They should grow the Hell up. Both of them. And they should be made to pay the costs incurred up to this point associated with neither of them having any sense, but it should end there. Real criminals need to see the judge. These yahoos need to see Jerry Springer.
This is hillarious! I am not aspiring to be lead “drama queen” on a blog. I am a casual poster here. I will post whatever.
Patty C,
Please do not respond to any thing personally on a post that I say something. This is a kind request at this time. Please do not post any more foolishness regarding receipes. Lastly leave Jill alone. All future responses to you will become less kind and charitable. Is this understood?
Buddha,
I, for one, wasn’t referring to the hosing as qualifying for ‘assault’.
I am slightly more concerned about what sounds like a wrestling match over a phone coming a smidge closer, no matter who he thought she was calling.
I agree with you about possible, perhaps mutual, ETOH factors and I would not be surprised if she stated she was calling the police, even if she was just calling ‘a friend’, just to provoke a confrontation.
Regardless, as you and I have both just agreed, they each have one one!
p.s. SM – ‘thanks for sharing’!
[duplicate post] Since this all took place in Florida (and this is a legal site) take a look at the state criminal laws:
784.011 Assault,
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
784.03 Battery; felony battery.
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
784.041 Felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation.–
(1) A person commits felony battery if he or she:
(a) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and
(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.
(2)(a) A person commits domestic battery by strangulation if the person knowingly and intentionally, against the will of another, impedes the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of a family or household member or of a person with whom he or she is in a dating relationship, so as to create a risk of or cause great bodily harm by applying pressure on the throat or neck of the other person or by blocking the nose or mouth of the other person. This paragraph does not apply to any act of medical diagnosis, treatment, or prescription which is authorized under the laws of this state.
(b) As used in this subsection, the term:
1. “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in s. 741.28.
2. “Dating relationship” means a continuing and significant relationship of a romantic or intimate nature.
(3) A person who commits felony battery or domestic battery by strangulation commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
In brief, the assault is the threat, and the battery is the intentional touching of the person against his or her will. Assuming the facts described by JT, there was a misdemeanor battery under Florida law, and probably an assault. There are also the civil torts of assault and battery to consider.
Take notes, 1L students. This will be on the exam.
AY,
Why don’t you take a flying leap?!
I was here before you.
Mespo and I post recipes rarely, on occasion, for the benefit of all – including JT who also likes to entertain.
Jill is a big girl and could defend herself. She chooses not to when challenged by me because she can’t-especially when it comes to medicine and other areas of my advanced study. She often does not know what she is talking about, here, and when I’be called her on repeated mistatements of fact, she handled that by falling silent.
I win!
Thanks Vince Treacy, that *is* what this ‘blawg’ is about. I learned something new from your post.
Wow. Two firefighter stories in the same week.
And in related news:
James Earl Taylor and Mary Childers have been arrested for domestic Cheetos assault.
Vince,
Thank you. I agree with FFLEO. Your reference to the law settles the issue.
A.Y. and S.M.,
Just keep posting. There are many of us here who have, on several occasions posted to each other out of a shared experience.
A.Y.,
I thank you for attempting to stop Patty from attacking me but it won’t work. JT has asked her many times, as have several others to refraim from her personal attacks. None of us has had any success in stopping her bizarre ramblings. I find her behavior disrespectful of JT and others who come here to consider ideas and have fun. I do not read Patty posts. Since she seems to attack you now as well, I would recommend the same tactic for you. Just communicate with the people who are sincere letting Patty’s hate-speech speak for itself.
****** No forum rules?*****
They should put some rules for this forum, so people can act a bit civilized here. This was my first attempt to post stuff on this site, and several people attacked me personally, because they did not agree with my personal views. I never attacked anyone on a personal basis, and I was quite baffled by some of the mean reactions I got.
Jill: “The only change that I can think of that you mean is the smoking was illegal in the restaurant and not at the home.”
Jill, here’s how you changed it:
“If you went to a restaurant where someone was smoking illegally outside on the patio and you picked up the garden hose and sprayed them with it, do you think they might call the police? If they started to call the police, would you run over and knock the phone from their hand?”
Hint: I’m not part of their family; I’m a complete third party stranger on third party premises. If I so much as kissed the woman I could be brought up on at least civil battery charges. Why? Because the touching is not implicitly permissible.
Husband and wife at home? TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY.
Husband sprays wife with hose; not illegal — thus would be as illegal to call 911 about it as calling 911 because the clerk at McDonalds didn’t give you your french fries at the drive through!
Elbow to the mouth; POSSIBLY DOMESTIC ABUSE in light of circumstances and intent leading up to the impact.
I don’t know what more to say.
Bob,
I used the example because people often accept violence and cruelty against/between family memebers that they would know was wrong when done by a stranger to another stranger. Sometimes, people can’t see it unless it’s framed as stranger on stranger violence. Then they get why it’s wrong between/against family members. I also refer you to Ken and Mike A.’s explanation of what is going on here.
As to the law, the citations Vince provided are definitive. Being a husband bestows no right to break the law. I would hope what Ken said about being a husband would prevail ethically in this matter.
Vince Treacy got the law right. Legislators have become increasingly sensitive to domestic abuse issues, and the laws are starting to reflect that. Buddha is probably also right in his suggestion that alcohol may have been involved. I agree that this appears to be run of the mill nonsense that got out of hand, but did any of you see “The War of the Roses”?
Jill: “As to the law, the citations Vince provided are definitive. Being a husband bestows no right to break the law. I would hope what Ken said about being a husband would prevail ethically in this matter.”
Ethics are not law and the law is the sole relevant point of departure for the entire discussion on this matter. Personal feelings as to how the husband and wife should have treated each other are irrelevant.
Unless he’s using it to drown her, a husband spraying his wife with a garden hose does not warrant a 911 call nor any other call for police help. Furthermore, anyone who calls 911 for such a trivial matter would be treated the same as the bozo who makes a 911 french fry call from McDonald’s.
But feel free to prove me wrong. Show me precedent that one spouse successfully (and I mean without the judge laughing) prosecuted a case of battery per spraying the other spouse with a garden hose.
Then I’ll show you some serious floodgates wherein millions and millions of children start suing each other for garden hose attacks, water pistol fights, etc.
And as I said above,
Elbow to the mouth; POSSIBLY DOMESTIC ABUSE in light of circumstances and intent leading up to the impact.
Bob,
I use earbuds to listen to music while I play with the computer. My better half does NOT use earbuds because they hurt his ears, he claims. We have our workstations in the same room with our TV and watch TV while we surf the web. The better half will open video files embedded in various blog stories and they will be loud enough to interfere with my hearing the TV or my music. I ask him to turn it down or use his earbuds. It pi***s me off to have to ask.
If I picked up my cold cup of coffee and threw it on him because I was angry, and wanted to punctuate my reminder to turn it down would that be OK? How about if I push him out of the way and turn off his computer?
From your response above it would, although if I did the same thing to a loud cellphone talker at a restaurant it would not be OK.
The problem with your argument is that it sets a higher level of tolerance for getting physical with a spouse than a stranger.
That’s not a new thought- as I recall there were laws on the books that allowed the beating of wives as long as it was with a stick no larger around than a thumb. Just what level of violence or intimidation or punishment for an errant spouse do you think is appropriate? I ask because you (and AY) seem to think some level of physical intimidation or punishment or ‘acting out’ is OK as long as it’s within the bounds of marriage. Your postings make that abundantly clear so I’m wondering just how far you think it should be allowed to go before it rises to the level of battery or assault.
lottakatz:
good points, although I have to side with Bobesq on this one. If my spouse threw cold water or coffee on me I would be pretty upset. Although I not would call the cops.
The couple has marital issues and needs a counselor not 911. I once almost sprayed a guy with a hose while in college, he was a doctor and was a real horses arse about some work I was doing for him. You know the kind, they like to take advantage of the young and the less fortunate, a real piece of work. You know after all these years I wish I would have had the b….s to do it. I don’t think it would rise to the level of assault, although I am sure he would have called the cops and spluttered and blustered about young rabble.
If I threw cold water or coffee on my wife I would need 911, the ambulance.
Bob,
You first say the law is definitive then you retract that argument. Which is it, because if the law is definitve then Vince’s citations and analysis have settled the issue.
“Unless he’s using it to drown her, a husband spraying his wife with a garden hose does not warrant a 911 call nor any other call for police help. Furthermore, anyone who calls 911 for such a trivial matter would be treated the same as the bozo who makes a 911 french fry call from McDonald’s.”
The husband may not choose the wife’s feelings or actions, he may only choose his own. If she feels threatened and calls the police it becomes a matter for the police to deal with.
I believe that lottakatz is correct when she says:
“…you…seem to think some level of physical intimidation or punishment or ‘acting out’ is OK as long as it’s within the bounds of marriage. Your postings make that abundantly clear…”
Legal and ethical issues often (but certainly not always) overlap. In this case they do. However, should you stick only with the legal issues, the law is settled just as Vince stated.
lottakatz:
“The problem with your argument is that it sets a higher level of tolerance for getting physical with a spouse than a stranger.”
Actually, you’ve reduced my argument to absurdity (reductio ad absurdum)
Throwing HOT coffee on a family member could (and most likely would) be considered battery. Why? Unlike iced coffee (yum yum) hot coffee creates something called BURN WOUNDS.
Per the garden hose, the only thing wounded in a spray attack is one’s pride; and unfortunately the penal system is not designed to handle such matters as ‘hurt prides.’
Finally, I was waiting for the ‘rule of thumb’ analogy; because beating your wife with a stick is in fact domestic abuse.
SIYOM,
Bob
Jill: “If she feels threatened and calls the police it becomes a matter for the police to deal with.”
You’re absolutely right. The husband in this case should have let her call; while refusing to bail her out when the cops took her away like the french fry 911 call guy.
Remember Jill, since I’ve already conceded the point on the elbow to the mouth, your entire point rests on the threat of being sprayed with a garden hose, at CITY WATER PRESSURE, constitutes threat of violence; and, if actually sprayed, rising to the level of violence associated with the CRIME of battery. NOT CIVIL BATTERY, but CRIMINAL BATTERY.
Find me a judge or case law that upholds uour position, and I will apologize for wasting your time.
Some of the things I have read about domestic abuse say that women are almost as likely to physically abuse their husbands as men are their wives. The statistics are unclear because most men will not call the police after the proverbial a…. whooping. Something to do with wounded male vanity and the fact that most cops would laugh.
2 references:
http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/DomesticViolenceMen.htm
http://www.dvmen.org/
Bob, Here is Vince’s analysis after citing the applicable law:
“In brief, the assault is the threat, and the battery is the intentional touching of the person against his or her will. Assuming the facts described by JT, there was a misdemeanor battery under Florida law, and probably an assault. There are also the civil torts of assault and battery to consider.”
This is my position. I don’t have to show anything other than what Vince already did. Here is the law and here is how it may be applied.
I believe we have made ourselves clear. I see no use in reiterating our arguments. Therefore, I will stop my part in this discussion.
Bob, to Jill: “your entire point rests on the threat of being sprayed with a garden hose, at CITY WATER PRESSURE, constitutes threat of violence; and, if actually sprayed, rising to the level of violence associated with the CRIME of battery.”
If I pulled a hose from my deck into my house (15′) and sprayed my husband with it because I was acting out he should and would feel threatened as would I if the roles were reversed, because it is behaviour that is out of control. It is threatening by it’s nature.
I didn’t say HOT coffee- I said cold cup of coffee.
“SIYOM” I don’t know what that means, is it a legal acronym? Define please.
Jill:
“In brief, the assault is the threat, and the battery is the intentional touching of the person against his or her will. Assuming the facts described by JT, there was a misdemeanor battery under Florida law, and probably an assault. There are also the civil torts of assault and battery to consider.”
“This is my position. I don’t have to show anything other than what Vince already did. Here is the law and here is how it may be applied.”
Jill, please note Vince’s caveat contained within the last sentence of what you posted; ‘There are also the civil torts of assault and battery.’ The criminal threshold for assault and battery are much higher than the ones under the law of torts. And remember, we’re talking about spraying a garden hose.
Husband holds up garden hose and points at wife. If that constitutes ‘an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent,’ then it holds just the same for every child whoever pointed a water pistol.
Jill: “I believe we have made ourselves clear. I see no use in reiterating our arguments. Therefore, I will stop my part in this discussion.”
BTW, Vince didn’t even make an argument; so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
lottakatz,
You bring up a good point. One that I wish would have been clarified in the affidavit.
Did he come inside and spray her with the hose, or did he spray her when she walked out of the house with a lit cigarette?
I tried to find some other reports of the incident, but none of them are consistent. All of them lack enough information to permit us to determine if this was a childish prank that got out of hand, or was an episode of domestic violence.
I’d be real interested in finding out if this is an isolated incident or the location of regular police visits.
Did she burn a hole in the couch the night before? (I know I’m speculating, but there’s always more to the story)
If someone soaked me with a hose, I’d consider it rude, but not battery. However, as a child, if it happened on Saturday night…I’d try to convince my mother that it should count as a bath. :>)
I don’t think the police would have arrested him for wetting his wife (or anyone), in the summer, in Florida…If the subsequent wrestling match didn’t result in his wife having a split lip. –Under domestic battery laws, I don’t think the police had a choice.
—A friend made a good point. If he would have sprayed the neighbor’s pet for pooping on his lawn, would anyone think twice about it?
lottakatz
“If I pulled a hose from my deck into my house (15′) and sprayed my husband with it because I was acting out he should and would feel threatened as would I if the roles were reversed, because it is behaviour that is out of control. It is threatening by it’s nature.”
The law applies to the act; it does not speculate or draw implications.
If you’d prefer to call the ‘out of control’ element a form of ‘reckless endangerment’ etc., then you’re free to do so. But it’ll have to be far more threatening than the garden hose itself. How about you and your husband run a Sodium production company and you happen to have a big block of sodium just laying about on the coffee table. Now the the garden hose can be used to make the house blow up!
And I know you didn’t say ‘hot coffee’ — I did to highlight the point how ridiculous it would be to cry battery after being doused with cold coffee.
Finally,
SIYOM = Stay in your own movie
Think of it as part Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and part Carl Jung.
SIYOM,
Bob
BoB, from Vince’s posting:
“.011 Assault,
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.”
Your posting: “The law applies to the act; it does not speculate or draw implications.”
Apparently the law does take into account ‘implications’ and logical speculation.
—–
Your posting: “SIYOM = Stay in your own movie… Think of it as part Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and part Carl Jung.”
I’ve read both. This forum is the Professors movie, if you’re telling me to stop responding on this thread then you’re out of line, that’s the Professors decision. If you meant something else then you’re not making yourself clear.
Bob,Esq.,
“How about you and your husband run a Sodium production company and you happen to have a big block of sodium just laying about on the coffee table. Now the the garden hose can be used to make the house blow up!”
Larger pieces of sodium melt under the heat of the reaction, and the molten ball of metal is buoyed up by hydrogen gas and may even appear to be stably reacting with water, that is, until splashing covers more of the reaction mass, causing thermal runaway and an explosion which scatters molten sodium and lye solution. In addition, did I mention FLAMES? Lots of flames!
I’m sorry, but blow up is unfairly belittling to sodium. HOLY HELL BREAKS LOOSE is a little closer.
lottakatz
“Apparently the law does take into account ‘implications’ and logical speculation.”
To be clear, you shifted from a description of battery to pondering the description of some other crime; like reckless endangerment. The phrase “Out of control” denotes something less than intentional. Assault and Battery are INTENTIONAL crimes and torts.
“Your posting: “SIYOM = Stay in your own movie… Think of it as part Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test and part Carl Jung.”
I’ve read both. This forum is the Professors movie, if you’re telling me to stop responding on this thread then you’re out of line, that’s the Professors decision. If you meant something else then you’re not making yourself clear.”
My apologies again. SIYOM is a closing I use in most of my emails and posts. Briefly stated, it’s a reminder to the reader to remain the author and hero of his/her own movie/biography rather than to allow others to write your script for you.
So, uh…
SIYOM
Bob
Patty C,
I see you for what you are so no need to say or respond to anything I say. Peace be with you.
Jim Byrne,
Thanks for the elaboration. Not sure I would have been able to describe it like you did even if I dug up my college chem books.
I think, pardon the phrase, the coolest thing about sodium, aside from its reaction to water, was the brief shiny golden color you’d see when someone, in a picture (never did it myself), carved off a piece with a pocket knife.
Funny thing, my best friend’s father taught college chem and it turned out my friend got his hands on his father’s stash of sodium. He knew what it could do, but since it was a modest sample, he thought he’d take it out of the jar and toss it in the toilet for fun.
I wasn’t there, but I’m told it lived up to your description.
lol
Bob,Esq.,
I can’t take credit for the description. It was pretty close to cut and paste from the Wikipedia precautions for Sodium. I just added a word here and there to make it flow a little better.
Whoever the original author was; he would make a pretty cool science professor.
–I’ve heard a number of versions of the sodium in the toilet story….Your friend did that? -Man, that dude is a legend! :>)
Stoners from around the world would pay money to see a repeat performance. LOL
JB,
Shoo, There might be some of up other stoner’s around. Ya never know, nod nod
Bob: “The phrase “Out of control” denotes something less than intentional. Assault and Battery are INTENTIONAL crimes and torts. ”
The law doesn’t require pre-meditation or a controlled display, only that the act/threat take place and that act be intentional as opposed to accidential; waving your hands around to make a point and accidentially hitting someones sholder. The man in this case probably has a better argument against battery regarding the split lip than the wresling to get the phone away from the wife or the spraying.
Technical issues aside I am still of the opinion that the fact that parties are married should not allow a higher level of physical confrontation or threat than would otherwise be allowed. That was my original objection to a couple of postings here and it remains. If you wouldn’t do it to a stranger or want a stranger to do it to you then marriage shouldn’t make it acceptable or frivolous to attempt to file a complaint about it. If that’s how it actually plays out in court then the legal profession has a problem IMO. Two standards is not a slippery slope DOWN to unaccaptable behaviour but (regarding spousal abuse) something we as a culture are having to climb UP from.
“–I’ve heard a number of versions of the sodium in the toilet story….Your friend did that? -Man, that dude is a legend! :>)”
There’s also the legend of throwing m-80’s into a toilet, doesn’t mean other people didn’t do it.
I’ll say this though, my friend also turned blowing up capacitors into an art.
He also turned a compressed cardboard carpet rolling tube into an enormous Tesla coil. Electrifying!
SIYOM,
Bob
P.S. My friend later went on to work for the defense department in electrical engineering.
lottakatz
“Technical issues aside I am still of the opinion that the fact that parties are married should not allow a higher level of physical confrontation or threat than would otherwise be allowed.”
I don’t disagree with you. However, a wife smacking her husband is different than a stranger smacking a stranger. Right or wrong, that’s the way it is.
Nonetheless, any attempt to equate brandishing a garden hose with something as threatening as brandishing a knife is simply perposterous.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob Esq makes a lot of legal arguments without ever citing a case or statute. This makes legal argument difficult, so I quoted and linked to the relevant statutes. Bob was initially confused about the distinction between battery and assault. At first, he said “assault with water via a garden hose,” when he described a battery. After the distinction was explained, he kept saying that the law of battery is different when married persons do it, and referred to “possibly domestic abuse” without citing a case or statute.
I have posted the Florida statutes. I did not see any exemption for marital battery. In my view, marriage does not constitute consent by a spouse to physical battery. In my opinion, Jill and lottakatz are right and Bob is wrong. The law of battery is not different for married couples. Mike Appleton, a practicing lawyer, said that “Legislators have become increasingly sensitive to domestic abuse issues, and the laws are starting to reflect that.”
Spouse abuse can be battery, and much worse. It is time to stop excusing people who batter or abuse spouses.
As a matter of law, as Vince pointed out, it was never a question. It was technically battery and there isn’t enough information to tell whether assault occurred, given the scenario as presented, it is not unlikely that some threats were flying both ways. That this wasn’t the case was never my contention. Violation or not, this is a matter of common sense or lack thereof that no court will ever do anything positive to address. Realistically, the best thing a judge could do would be grant these people a divorce if they asked. Anything else within his power is only going to aggravate the situation. One of the purposes of the law is to right the criminal and civil wrongs done to victims in an attempt to make the whole again. This will do nothing to make anyone whole again. State actors NEED to stay out of marriages unless someone REALLY gets hurt. This should have been “if I have to come out here one more time, you’re both going to jail” situations with a healthy dose of “here’s a counselor’s number.” Instead, they are in the grist mill now and the chances of salvaging their marriage (a valid social concern) will rapidly approach zero.
Over a damn water hose.
There was recently a thread where the Right to be Stupid was discussed. While this is a technical violation, it’s an example of wasting systemic resources to address a problem with the courts instead of the ONLY place that might address the problem with some degree of success (instead of further escalation) – at the offices of a marriage counselor or a therapist. This is a case of stupidity colliding with technicality for a resolution I can almost guarantee NO ONE will be happy with in the end. In an attempt to address one social wrong, the courts will use a technicality and create yet another. There is no equity in this. There is no justice in this. It’s meddlesome and counterproductive absent a more substantial violation of the laws. It is possible to violate the spirit of the law while adhering strictly to the letter. If the DA has a lick of sense, he’ll offer them a deal – see a counselor and get your collective act together (or get a divorce) and no one has to talk to the judge, but next time you both get a night in the pokey or worse.
There are unpunished murders and traitors on the loose. Almost every venue has backlog issues that push out court dates many months. Do you really want to waste already taxed court and prosecution resources on a water hose attack? This is inefficient in prosecution and deficient in positive net outcomes now that the court is involved.
http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/18/the-criminalization-of-america/
“attempt to make the VICTIM whole again”
The grammatical case of missing corpus delicti . . .
All of this reminds me of what a colleague who transferred from Alaska to the lower 48 after being up there in a very remote bush location where his only transportation was a snowmobile.
One native Alaskan told him that the world had dramatically changed in his long lifetime. He said “The world is crazy and I don’t know what it’s coming to, Heck, you caint even slap your wife around anymore if she misbehaves, like you used to could…
Folks, the wife had/has every right to seek redress through the law/courts. She did not write the laws, she is simply requesting that her husband be subject to the law, regardless of how petty we *men* think this garden hose incident might have been. Anger over mere words has led loving spouses to die from murder-suicide in momentary fits of rage. If more couples understood the law—albeit perhaps too strict—then such incidents might be prevented.
Remember, it is not our right to judge another person’s right to make civil or criminal charges against another person, even if it seems asinine to some of us, as in this case, or frivolous, as in many lawsuits that occur. The laws and the courts are there for a reason, regardless of our personal opinions of the initial ‘reasoning’ of the accuser, affiant, deponent…
In the end, it is the husband who will be the one “hosed”
Amen to that FFLEO!
FFLEO,
In many states, once the police are called, it’s no longer a personal choice of the alleged victim on whether to proceed with criminal charges, it’s up to the DA. And no DA looking to pump up his numbers has ever gone overboard on this kind of thing instead of pursuing a case that might actually require some work on his/her part to catch and convict serious dangers to society. To be clear, that was pure sarcasm. The civil component? Lack of substantive damage will be an issue and since in civil action the parties have to pay the attorneys, I really don’t care as much about the resource issues as in criminal cases the majority of the expense is in development of the case for prosecution and not the time of the judge – this is true of civil filings as well so the brunt of the cost falls to the fools availing themselves of judicial relief for getting damp. As for the publicly paid for resources of the criminal courts, this is a total waste of time that achieves 1) nothing of value for either party and 2) detracts from more pertinent business. My concern here is pure from a resource conservation standpoint. We only have X criminal judges and prosecutors. I’d expect them to choose their battles with more focus on the legal and social utility of potential outcomes of their prosecutions than this. When they don’t, it’s often called negligence or prosecutorial misconduct. Pick winnable battles with the tools you have at hand instead of picking the low hanging fruit of cases that judicial intervention will not help and will likely only harm. Go after all the high value low hanging fruit you want, but this? This is of limited value. Justice is represented by a scale for a reason. I don’t think this kind of prosecution as a first step helps anyone or serves anyone’s long term interests, public or private. We should also all consider that this is being discussed in a bubble. We have no way of knowing if there are other episodes that may change the scenario. But on its’ face as presented, I still see a technical violation that’s a waste of limited resources to prosecute without taking additional steps to attempt a better outcome than possible once criminal courts become involved.
Just communicate with the people who are sincere letting Patty’s hate-speech speak for itself.
–
Jill, you are one piece o’ work.
Your ‘hate speech’ is yet another thing I object to since you attached yourself here like a leech.
Don’t you dare speak for me, compare yourself to me, or copy my exact original words and try to credit them to yourself.
I’ve posted, at length, a couple of times when JT inquired, about what it is that irritates me.
And you do change your behavior in reaction to my criticisms, despite what you said the other day to Mike A on the Illinois U thread, EVERY time.
You think I’m rude. I think you are uncouth. So there!
For you information, while I am entitled to be a card carrying member of the DAR and the Mayflower Society complete with the breast hardware and shoulder epaulets, I simply don’t have the time!
While I continue to be approached constantly because of my interest in constitutional matters, I leave the leisurely social activity to my mother and my sisters. So you, Jill, in particular, and everyone else can stop taking pot shots at my ‘elite’ status. Also as stated on numerous occasions, my family was not ‘rich’ and certainly not during my lifetime. Any amassed shipping fortunes were lost long ago along with those unsecured textile patents that the DuPonts stole from my grandfather leaving my family practically shirtless…
I have about as much time for that dust as I have for your mountain of sorrow.
Buddha,
I do not find this man’s actions trivial. I do find them threatening. Just from a practical standpoint (setting aside the legal rights of the woman pointed out by FFLEO) this case is not a waste of public resources. This man believes it is his right to batter his wife and control her actions through the use of force. For too long our society has tolerated a man’s idea that he may do such things to his wife. Yet, he legally may not and morally should not. If you want to stop clogging the courts with domestic violence cases then the best way to do so is to take it seriously as the criminal offense it is. There are good studies to back this up. Once a man knows he will have legal consequences to harming his wife he tends to stop being violent, quickly and permanently. It is when the harm keeps being ignored and trivialized that it tends to escalate. So I am saying, from a practical standpoint, swift and certain legal consequences are some of the most effective tools for ending domestic violence (which will achieve you end of saving public resources).
I wish to emphasize that while this case is male on female violence, it would not matter if it were male on male, female on female or female on male. A person who is in control of themselves would leave the scene and resolve this matter in a sane and reasonable matter. A person who feels they have the right to harm their partner in order to achieve their aims is engaging in both unethical, dangerous, and unlawful behavior.
“complete with the breast hardware”
_________________________________
We *Do Not* want further details.
Vince Treacy:
“Bob was initially confused about the distinction between battery and assault. At first, he said “assault with water via a garden hose,” when he described a battery. After the distinction was explained, he kept saying that the law of battery is different when married persons do it, and referred to “possibly domestic abuse” without citing a case or statute.”
Actually, I’ve never been confused about the distinction between assault and battery. By mentioning the “assault” in describing a battery, I’m attempting to shed light on the complete lack of that ‘criminal thingy’ known as MENS REA.
You copied and pasted the Florida criminal code on the subject, yet you make no argument. At the moment, you seem to be joining in the opinion that brandishing an ordinary garden hose and spraying someone with water is CRIMINAL assault and battery. I say that cops and judges on the whole would consider that horseshi+. Your argument necessitates that the act of brandishing pointing a f’n garden hose at someone else contains the requisite mens rea to rise to the level of criminal assault simply because you’ve already done an end run and deemed the resulting battery as criminal–you know, when you posted the statute and pretty much said “hey, that’s what happened.”
Did you know that you can’t bring a charge for criminal battery in New York unless you show the ADA evidence of substantial physical injury? Do you know why the courts and the D.A.’s office won’t prosecute just anyone an alleged victim points his/her finger at? Care to guess? Here’s a hint; why don’t we have the D.A.’s office and all the courts spend their time prosecuting everyone in the state of New York who brandishes a garden hose and sprays anyone — just for this summer?
And per the marriage distinction, you can file that under implicit consentual touching allowed under given circumstances; like a marriage. Another form of implicit consent would be a visit to the doctor. Do we need to consult Prosser on this one?
Finally, do you really think I’m going to run a Lexis search just to please you in this little dialogue?
Buddha,
Just for the record, I agree with everything you’ve had to say on this subject. However a little more righteous indignation, dare I say outrage, at the idea that spraying someone with a f’n garden hose rises to the level of criminal battery would have been appreciated.
Not for nothing, but can you imagine how many kids & cases would be clogging up the civil courts as well as the criminal courts & juvinile detention ….
Ah F)( it. Just chalk it off to being more proof that mankind has not evolved an inch from the slime that spawned him.
SIYOM,
Bob
Buddha,
“As a matter of law, as Vince pointed out, it was never a question. It was technically battery and there isn’t enough information to tell whether assault occurred,”
Forgot this one.
Mens rea; where is it?
Are you truly contending that the intent to spray someon with a garden hose rises to the level of criminal intent to do harm?
I say you’re not contending that; evidenced by your sarcastic expression per the patently deminimus level of offense involved:
To wit:
“Over a damn water hose.”
Yep, the weapon of choice among kids on a hot summer day.
SIYOM,
Bob
Bob,
In re mens rea:
I’ve been dancing around it with Jill. I agree it’s an issue.
If you want to stop clogging the courts with domestic violence cases then the best way to do so is to take it seriously as the criminal offense it is.
–
Jill, your statement makes NO practical or justiciable sense and has no basis in reality with regard to this case, in particular, or most others brought these days.
Women no longer automatically qualify for greatest consideration simply because of their perceived delicate female sensibilities as they once were. Not by a long shot, from my observations. Nor is my statement to be taken as fodder to stick it to women whose male abusers wish to abuse further because they can and/or have decided sorely ‘deserve’ it, anyway.
By accepting such frivolous complaints, as serious, in the form of the ceremonious granting of restraining orders, only serves to ‘up the ante’ in domestic abuse cases, as well as divorce and child custody cases, whether or not they are staged.
The system we have in place is both necessary AND totally ripe for abuse – unfortunately, JILL…
As to Vince Treacy’s post, technically, ‘assault’ is ANY touching which is unwelcome and declared as such – much like sexual harassment and coercion under threat, which is something I know more than a smidge about from experiences with a particular DA when I was in school and working as a paralegal and doing research in the local law library in my early twenties
- thank you very much…
I left the state, continued my studies elsewhere, accepting an entry-level job and then getting a HUGE promotion within six months in the process of legally administering CGL Insurance cases for four offices in New England!
Just like that! Snap! Win-Win.
And THEN I went to Med School…
I wish to emphasize that while this case is male on female violence, it would not matter if it were male on male, female on female or female on male.
–
Well, that’s certainly VERY magnanimous of you…
See you next Tuesday!
Bob Frog Esq.
Vince Treacy, Mike Appleton Esqs. “hosed” your legal argument.
Seriously, the hosing was not the issue; it was the follow-up of the husband elbowing his wife in the mouth. Any affiant–the wife in the case–must give the full details leading up to the battery and the hose spraying was part of the record, but not the basis for the battery charge. As an attorney/Esq./lawyer you know much more about what happens after the LEO work is done and yours—as an Esq.—begins.
Of course, since you are a frog, we expect you to like water and overspray, and why, as a man, you appear to be more upset at this than warranted. Now no need to git riled-up at me because you are one of my favorite regulars here, but pard, you are leapfrogin’ over the law in this ‘sheer’ instance.
Did the wife deserve the water sprayin’; yes, I think so. Did she deserve an elbow to the mouth; definitely not, and therein lies the legal rub.
FFLEO: “Seriously, the hosing was not the issue; it was the follow-up of the husband elbowing his wife in the mouth.”
FFLEO,
I distinguished the elbow to the mouth in my very first post on this topic:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/06/30/overspray-or-assault-florida-man-charged-with-battery-after-drenching-wife-with-garden-hose-for-smoking/#comment-64799
And I continued to distinguish it, even conceding the issue, throughout the thread.
“the hose spraying was part of the record, but not the basis for the battery charge”
That’s what I’m thinking. However, there seems to be plenty of people here who think otherwise.
“you appear to be more upset at this than warranted. Now no need to git riled-up at me because you are one of my favorite regulars here, but pard, you are leapfrogin’ over the law in this ‘sheer’ instance.”
Sorry, I have a low threshold tolerance for bullshi+.
“Did the wife deserve the water sprayin’; yes, I think so. Did she deserve an elbow to the mouth; definitely not, and therein lies the legal rub.”
Actually, as a former fed LEO, you should know that “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
SIYOM,
Bob
Marriage vows are for better or worse, not batter or worse.
Actually, as a former fed LEO, you should know that “deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
—
Thank you yet again, Bob, but you should also recognize this to be one of a few long standing problems often associated with governmental ie Federal enforcement types – from there perspective.
‘Deserve’ has every bit to do with moat of their existence.
I know. I was married, briefly, to a ‘Regional Counsel’, once…
I’d also like to say state that I find it continually amusing to see that most of those who criticize me, hold off in expressing their opinions until I have expressed mine and some
then continue on, more often than not, to agree with me.
It’s validating and most satisfying!
Thank you, to the few…
p.s. And thanks, JT, for backing me up on Sonia Sotamayor the other night on KO…!!!!!!!!
Patty C
I know. I was married, briefly, to a ‘Regional Counsel’, once…
________________________
And we all know why:
I bet you did not have to worry about be just sprayed with a water hose. I am sure that this would have been from a lot of folks. This I am sure.
Patty C
I’d also like to say state that I find it continually amusing to see that most of those who criticize me, hold off in expressing their opinions until I have expressed mine and some
then continue on, more often than not, to agree with me.
It’s validating and most satisfying!
Thank you, to the few…
p.s. And thanks, JT, for backing me up on Sonia Sotamayor the other night on KO…!!!!!!!!
______________________________
Is there something illogical in the above.
1) You find it amusing;
2) That most who criticize you;
3: Hold off in expressing their opinions until you have expressed your?;
4) Then continue on; and
Its Validating and most satisfying.
Do they have magic mushroom where you live? Did you take a trip and not return to reality? Are you really Dick Cheney? Did someone leave the cage door open again? Has the Nurse returned to the station and that is why we won’t see you again until next Tuesday? Do you like the nice rubber room that they give you? Is the food that they serve you as good as the other places? Do you have a life outside of the blawg? Please see John Prine’s words for reality. It don’t cost very much.
“Please see John Prine’s words for reality. It don’t cost very much.”
… but it lasts a long while
Won’t you please tell the man
I didn’t kill anyone
No I’m just trying to have me some fun ….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z1wNrPHGlQ
Great song.
Hyper-lyric-tosis
Can’t get the song out of my head now.
Now now, FFLEO.
Don’t be so quick. Vince provided the text, but it was Bob that latched on to the key word while I was flapping with Jill about judicial inefficiency. If intent is part of the local wording for describing battery, which it can be and in this case is, then mens rea is quite relevant. If it’s a required element of the crime, there it is.
Your bias that this is a woman in question is showing. Hey, you know I think you’re a stand up guy. I’m pretty sure I know where that chivalrous streak comes from and I appreciate and encourage it, but in this instance it’s not furthering justice, just “protecting the girl” on little more than her say so. You’ve lept from “she was sprayed” a proven stipulated by both parties albeit from differing perspectives, to the “elbow to the mouth” is somehow automatically battery. This is pre-judging despite stipulation on the husbands part in his statements at the time as to his lack of intent – an intent required under FLA law. There are many ways to frame this. Under the FLA law Vince provided, intent is a requisite element of both assault and battery. All kinds of doubt can be raised in court especially in light of the very insubstantial and inconsequential injury and the temporally stated lack of mens rea on the husband’s part. We won’t even mention what could be done with evidence of patterned abusive behavior of any sort on her part. Yeah, dragging that out in court as a defense tactic will probably not be conducive to reconciliation and some lawyer out there is just lazy and sleazy enough to do it instead of focusing on the intent ball and letting the law work to sort out any missing elements of crimes charged. Without a more substantial crime or better evidence, this is still wasteful and inefficient in addition to being not only not helpful, but exacerbating to the underlying situation. The courts may be the right tool for this job someday, but this wasn’t it.
This current situation helps no one and only ends badly, but it’s nice to see so many people ready to throw the hubby under the bus based on her word alone over an injury of dubious harm. If she had taken a beating and he claimed no intent, it’d be one thing, but honestly, I think both you and Jill are just looking to blame the man automatically. It’s reflex. It’s just bad reflex when it comes to this being a crime worthy of the courts time. DA’s can make deals to forebear prosecution if the potential defendant agrees to take remedial action without court intervention. It happens all the time. This is an instance where making both parties attend counseling or charges be filed is much more conducive to a positive resolution than a trial over dubious charges over an injury that is at best minimal in the array of all possible injury. Even if the trial ends in acquittal or dismissal with prejudice, it creates unhealthy strain on what is already apparently a relationship under some stress. There is no upside to criminal prosecution at this point. The threat of it? Sure. It may keep him from turning Mr. Water Hose in to Mr. Fist, but I go with the analogy of criminal law as the hound of the state. The value of owning a hound, showing you own a hound and releasing said hound are intrinsically different and each comes with unique costs. I’m telling you all of this not just as someone who has seen these kinds of process from the inside as an attorney, but as someone who was personally in an abusive relationship that DID end with criminal court intervention that I instigated, my ex on probation for spousal abuse and an annulment.
No interpersonal relationship is as complicated as marriage – be it of any sexual composition. The courts need to stay out of them as a putative actor unless there is clearly no other option for intervention. When they don’t, they never improve a situation – all of their remedy are at least partially destructive to the institution of marriage. As a species we have more than one tool at our disposal and indeed many tools, like law, that can serve multiple functions. Personally, I think using a tool intelligently and creatively is just as important as using it at all. It’s the difference between using a hammer to build a house or using it to build a bunch of randomly aligned and attached 2×4’s. It is well proven in these threads that few tools are intrinsically evil, but many are misapplied. Even when I was talking efficiency, the core of my contention was misapplication of the tool in question.
Patty,
If you’re going to agree with me, I’d really appreciate it if you’d better segregate it from any anti-whomever ravings. In that last post you spent exactly one truncated word agreeing and more than I feel like counting to bash Jill and AY. I wouldn’t mind so much if the bashing furthered the contention. This didn’t. It served no purpose to further our mutual point. It had no impeachment value. It was borderline counterproductive. After several failed attempts as mediation between you and Jill, I’ve stated I’d stay out of your anti-Jill rants (for various reasons) and I have since then and to this point. Now I expect you to reciprocate and keep your rants out of my arguments. It’s only polite. Thanks.
Doh,
Nevermind. It’s gone now.
Buddha,
I thought I had missed the 4th of July again and here we were at Tuesday already. I read it on my cellphone and agree that these type of things are counter productive. However in defense of the right to debate so long as it is clean and no real personal attacks are used against others I am fair gamed about it. Know what I mean Buddha? The big large alien looking person.
Patty,
If you’re going to agree with me, I’d really appreciate it if you’d better segregate it from any anti-whomever ravings. In that last post you spent exactly one truncated word agreeing and more than I feel like counting to bash Jill and AY.
–
Fine. Next time I will separate them. My agreeing with you was never an important part of my contributions to the turlee blawg. I was here long before you, as well…
I said what I needed to say to the cretans who have unfortunately assembled here – along with Jill.
Obviously, Jill went’wahhh-waahh’ing again to JT, per her usual wide ‘victim’ stance.
Remind you of anyone…?
Is it Tuesday already? But then again it feels like Friday and I know its not. I did not complain, never will.
I think alls Buddha was trying to say is you are going to be ignorant just leave him out of your ignorance. Then you go insulting him again. You say you have all of this class, is it not time to show it?
But then again, it really not about Jill. Its about you. Is it not?
Thank you Pardon Me?
‘The Water is Wide’ is an old Trad favorite of mine. The songstress here has a beautiful voice and the instrumental accompaniment is perfectly harmonious and sonorous.
Pardon Me, the overspray from the Wide Water must be wide indeed; however, this song was more like a fresh spray of roses on a summer morn…
Thanks for posting this classic by a new artist (to me, at least)
But then again, it really not about Jill. Its about you. Is it not?
–
No, it’s about Jill. You also should not attempt speaking for me.
You haven’t a clue. I sincerely doubt you are a lawyer now or in the past.
In fact, that you can’t even articulate a complete thought much less construct a complete grammatical sentence makes me question if you ever graduated high school much less college or law school.
Take an English class!
But then again, it really not about Jill. Its about you. Is it not?
–
No, it’s about Jill. You also should not attempt to speak for me.
You haven’t a clue. I sincerely doubt you are a lawyer – now or in the past.
In fact, that you can’t even articulate a complete thought much less construct a complete grammatical sentence makes me question if you ever graduated high school much less college or law school.
Take an English class, why dontcha?
you are most welcome, sirs.
A.Y. and S.M.,
Just keep posting. There are many of us here who have, on several occasions posted to each other out of a shared experience.
–
No AY and SM, you have been requested by two people not to because sharing a common experienc e related to the blog is not what you two were doing. You were having private conversations having nothing to do with anything posted here when you have other opotions not available to the rest of us because we don’t know each other.
Jill, shut the f’up!
You have no authority here, much less one to override my requests that posters adhere to ‘turlee’ self regulation.
Mind your own business. Your interference is neither required or appreciated.
Go away until Tuesday like you said or I will find my own water hose you hear me please? Good now go finnish that MD2020 or Annie
Greensprings. They still come in twist off caps?
I am not familiar with your brand nor the point you are trying to make, but then again I usually don’t.
You are an ass AND a fool-congratulations!
p.s. I have call tonight, so I am up…
Patty,
I was being polite. I know you are capable of doing the same without being backhanded. You used to be anyway. While I am capable of speaking for myself, AY’s summation was not totally incorrect. I’ve agreed to stay out of your ignorance so agree with me or not, please leave it out of our interactions. Feel free to substitute “irrational vendettas” for ignorance if you like as it is more accurate and less incendiary since I do not think you are a technical ignoramus, but rather an intelligent and educated woman who has perpetually declined into unreasoned, and I choose this word carefully based on the recently deleted post, RAVING.
Seriously.
You quote me, say “Zactly!” and then it was off to the races, wasn’t it? If you were a troll, I’d be whipping out that Mel Brooks classic line about frontier gibberish for that little display. That was pure vitriol with no value but venting your whatever it is you’re venting. It had NOTHING to do with the discussion you just agreed with me upon. Nothing. As in zero. I’m also pretty sure Jill doesn’t have editorial sway with the Professor too. That’s paranoid. Anyone who read the post knows EXACTLY why the Prof. would pull it. It was the kind of purely personal attack that he’s deleted before and warned you about. And seriously, if you’d said what you said about Jill to a flesh and blood woman in a bar? I used to bounce – I know a fight brewing when I see it and that goes for cat fights too. It was pure trash talk. Your next step would have been to attack her personal hygiene and pull her hair. Your perpetual pissing match with Jill and AY is between you and them. They can fend for themselves. You said you were free to do what you wanted when I and others tried to mediate and I agreed. That includes the choice to behave badly should you choose to make it. Just leave me out of it. As a courtesy. You know, like the one I’ve just extended to you twice now and got the spit of your condescension on me for my efforts even as you agree with me.
I respect our host and his rules even though I may push them at times. You clearly do not as you’ve just been edited out for pure ad hominem bile in what’s this? The second or third offense now? I loose count. Yet you fall back on your pedigree again to be dismissive of me – this time as an “original” – for a rationalization for ungraciousness in the light of proffered courtesy. Not content to vent on Jill and AY, you instead try to spread a little bile to me too. Well . . . perhaps less bile and more like childish snottiness, but it’s all derivative. For someone relying upon pedigree like that to be so blatantly and repeatedly disrespectful of the very lenient rules of our host? Well I’ll just let others draw their own conclusions about your credibility based upon your actions. I sure miss the Patty that had something valuable to say. Let me know when you let her out of the closet. Until then, show a little decorum. I don’t care if we agree on a topic or not, but seeking to spread your bile to me is also a bad tactical decision even if it’s just snarky dismissiveness, Patty. Out of respect for the Patty I like who has gone into hiding, I beg you to back off the bile. Escalation with me is never a winning option. I’m not where you want to go with whatever it is you’re going with in your vendetta against AY and Jill. I’ve been staying out (at your request), so don’t drag me back in again also means don’t seek to expand on to third front. Much like the instant case, it won’t end well. I promise. So you make sure you keep your promise. Next time, separate your personal war with them from our interaction.
And might also I suggest in the future – agree or disagree on a given topic – you save your condescension for an enemy, Patty. Your list of friends here grows shorter every time you post something like your last, and might I add practically insane, attack on Jill and AY. I’m a better friend than enemy, Patty, and I’m trying to be your friend even now, but if you heap on enough condescension, I’ll eventually stop trying – too much and I’ll attack at some point. Ask mespo for his opinion on that last statement since he’s the only one who seems to have any sway with you anymore. What I say is true. The amount of pure anger your deleted post displayed was unhealthy. Don’t steer it at me. I don’t know why you’re angry, I don’t know why this is how you’re expressing it, but I do know it’s bad for you no matter the cause. Anger eats your soul, no matter how well contained. Your soul is looking a bit chewed on lately. You don’t want to add to the misery of the world in general or yours specifically by testing who between the two of us can be meanest for the sake of being mean.
Now is the part where you’ll either agree that we should be nice to one another in addition to leaving me out of “The War” or you’ll tell me since I’m not an original I should go fornicate myself in some geometrically improbably configuration or something to that effect. Your choice. Just remember that every choice has a consequence. Carrot or stick? I got plenty o’ both. I’d rather you take a carrot. They’re good for you.
Jill posts hateful things about me and takes pot shots aimed at her perception of my ‘elite’ status as a descendant of the Pilgrims and an ever present Constitutional advocate all the time. She is neurotically obsessed with me and my lineage. What’s funny is that I don’t use it to my advantage for anything. I never have.
I responded to that crappola, once again, just as I did with Bartlebee, who Jill welcomed with open arms and who ended up getting himself kicked out because of his hateful behavior toward me, all the while being egged on by Jill, mind you.
I spotted him as a loser the first day he showed. Because of Jill, he succeeded in taking up space and aggravating turlees for months. The soap opera continues as long as she remains! My question is, why is SHE still here?
It’s not rational and I will never make the argument that is, but whenever I see her f’n name, it’s like nails on a chalkboard for moi. Like this:
I can’t stand her ass, generally, and much less in light of what she did online to my (our) friend and fellow turlee, DW
- before he passed away last summer from a recurrence of his cancer…
May I make an unsolicited editorial as we all do. If you do not like someone, DO NOT read the post. If you do read the post, then don’t respond to it immediately. Think about what you are trying to say, why you are saying it and to whom is it directed.
We all, I think have a common cause, and that is the betterment of this site. we should all strive for this to be the best. I have acted less than mature and I apologize for my action. And NO I have not posted under your name. I was trying to short circuit the crap that gets rolled and move on. But that too got blown out of proportion.
I have tried to figue out how to add that gravator. It don’t like me. So until somebody sets it up for me. I am anonymously yours.
Which goes into who I am in name. If I said I was the relative or grandson of a major oil company founder, how would that impact who I am? It has no bearing, well yeah it does. You don’t know who your friends really are. So with that said. Let us get along.
So Rodney King got 32 Million? I was wrong I thought it was only 10. Oh well, probably up his nose or in his vein.
This is side topic and off topic as well. We are making a lot of problems for no real reason. I can be selfish in a lot of ways and I am trying to be better. This last weekend I met a young person, who is just starting High School. They are addressing a coke problem and the parents are pissed at her. It is ok for them to smoke weed and drink with her parents but its not ok for her to use the substance of her choice.
I think something is wrong with that picture.
Now really what are our problems again?
Yes, I cut 6th grade English and have never been sorry about it. Sentence structure? What is accepted in one setting is not necessarily acceptable in another. This is crazy talk because, everyone of us here has erred with typos and other choices that would certainly have gotten us bad marks in school. But this is the real world accept that in life there are somethings you cannot control.
Just don’t make them personal. That is when you cross the line and I address them. Someone has offended everyone on this list at sometime. However, I have yet to see the verbiage spewed like you, or is that ewe?
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
That’s kind of an answer too I suppose.
When you use your pedigree(s) like a cudgel, which I’ve seen you do more than once Patty whether or not you’ve ever used your position IRL to your advantage, you shouldn’t be shocked when it’s turned against you. You’ve even played it as if your peerage somehow gave you a superior opinion before, so let’s get this straight. Your response about being snotty to me was instead about what a snob about your peerage Jill is about you being a snob about your peerage. And how bad that annoys you. And how bad AY annoys you. With just about that much supporting substance.
Hm.
If you don’t see the problem in that, then you’ve lost all critical perspective and instead of further contributing to your self-destruction, I’ll choose to bid you good day until I see concrete evidence the old Patty has returned with something of value to say. It should be readily apparent by how I handled my ex that I’ll go to great lengths to try to aid someone I care about but that willingness ends where purposeful self-destruction starts.
Good day.
Buddha,
Thanks for your last post directed at me regarding the original topic. I completely understand your position; however, I simply cannot agree with you when it comes to the law because regardless we all are supposed to have our day in court if our claims meet the ‘requirements’.
I was trained and worked within the initial phases of LE; therefore, I am unqualified—legalistically—as a nonlawyer to fully defend the FL statues other than expressing my personal opinion founded on reasonableness and my LEO experiences.
I do not think—since we have not read the sworn affidavit—that we know of the full extent of the wife’s injuries. Did she have a bloody swollen lip, etc.? I know that an elbow to the mouth can knock a person down or even render them unconscious.
Intent was established once the husband began direct physical contact/struggle with his wife, regardless of who started what.
Would any attorneys here—based on the available evidence—defend the husband’s actions in court and expect to gain a favorable judgment?
Anonymously Yours:
“Is it Tuesday already? But then again it feels like Friday and I know its not.”
You apparently don’t know what “see you next Tuesday” means in lady-speak.
Try saying it slowly and see if you can find the acronym.
Buddha Is Laughing
“Have adjective, will travel.”
If convicted, he will lose his ability to possess a firearm, but retain the right to bear garden hose. U.S. v. Hayes (2009)
What if the weapon of choice had been a Nerf Dart? -An item not intended to do any harm. (a child’s play toy, designed to be fired at another) Is the garden hose worse than a Nerf Dart?
What may have started as a innocent retaliatory prank may lead to extreme consequences.
Buddha, I didn’t even read your post past the first few lines. Maybe you lost me on any possible mutual respect level a couple of weeks ago when you called me a ‘pissant’ for also sticking up for myself, yes, personally.
Your problem is that in order for you to be right, you have to make everyone else wrong. I told you a while ago you are not that observant and you don’t listen well, either. If you responded to your ex the way you do to me, no wonder she tried to drink herself to death. Obviously, from what you’ve said she was already in a great deal of pain when you met her which also begs the question why you MARRIED her in the first place. Her issues are not my issues. They might still be yours, though.
Jill’s vendettas, and not just against me, have been ongoing, here, for an entire year, now.
My brother is a radio big-wig owner/operator. He has a duplicate studio in his home where he still does much of the programming and live artist interviews himself. Just as Jill demonstrated on the blawg here when she arrived, she thought she could muscle her way into the business by sucking up to me – which I likewise resented.
You weren’t here then, but a lot of her early behavior was totally inappropriate and much of it still is, in my view.
When I made it clear that assistance from me not be forthcoming, she had no further ‘use’ for me. NO problem there…!
From my perspective, not only does she lack polish AND experience, I am not interested in what she has to say
(ie copies), politically, or otherwise.
What I also resent is her tendency, likewise along the same lines, to simply not respond to challenges when she makes ridiculous misstatements of facts in areas she knows little and I am expertly qualified, like medicine and law, because it would require her to admit she is wrong.
I am still dying to know what special kind of cancer is caused by smoking ‘lite’ cigarettes…
…for instance!
Jim Byrne: “What if the weapon of choice had been a Nerf Dart?”
It would be better than a lawn dart.
I grew up in the age of lawn darts.
Ah memories.
Yes Bob, I do remember playing with “JARTS”.
A couple of beers, and the resultant wet fingers, turned this into an ancient game of spear catching.
blah blah blah
Bye Patty.
Very intelligent response, Buddha.
Aw, whatsamatter – did I hurt your feelings?
Truth hurts sometimes, doesn’t it? You may not like my style, but I will tell you what I see.
When you put your coins in my machine and push the button you get what asked for – every time.
Congrats! You’ve just moved from the “valued” column to the “semi-valued” and finally come to rest in the “inconsequential” column.
No Patty, you can’t hurt my feelings. I quit caring what you thought some time ago and in order to have effect, your barbs must have relevance. Now I just feel sorry for you. Any insult you have for me at this point has all the relevance of getting the finger from a shouting wino.
But continue to try to piss me off if you like. It only makes you look smaller, more pathetic and blindly mean spirited. Wino wasn’t a bad choice of words either, because right now you’re acting quite frankly just like an angry drunk. Bouncers get to see a lot of them too. I’m done trying to get through to you through that thick haze of bitchiness you taken to swathing yourself in as of late – just in case you didn’t get that part of the message since you’re an admitted selective reader.
This is the last time I’ll address you until and unless you get your act together. It has nothing to do with anything you’ve done to me either, just to be clear, and everything to do with what you’ve done to yourself. Engaging you no longer benefits anyone. You feel free to continue spiraling downward and wallowing in your irrational hatreds, but I said good bye and that’s exactly what I meant. I miss the old Patty. The “New” Patty, on the other hand, is a hateful pantsload of nastiness with nothing constructive to add any longer and I’m done with her. Engaging trolls is a more profitable undertaking.
Bye.
I made the Dubya/ladder truck analogy many times during the Bush years and it seems appropriate here as well.
When you’re hanging on to the back of one of those trucks speedily rounding a corner on route to a fire, you hope the person at the wheel knows not only where they are going but how to drive the rig. Same thing in surgery.
We used to enjjoy that same level of confidence and comradery with regard to the serious constitutional issues being discussed at that time until Jill came along and opened it up to anything and everything ‘out there’ (her exxact words).
My frustrations started there and continue on to this day.
I don’t care whether you ‘get’ what I am saying or not. I said ‘it’ and I would say it all over again. You weren’t here in the beginning when it was really great, I was. So was mespo.
You may relish being used or having people trash your treasured art or belongings.
I do not.
Inconsequential is an apt descriptive for you and anyone else who has a problem with my lineage and bona fides. Doesn’t affect me one way or the other. I enjoy a full and satisfying life.
Bye-bye!
Bob,Esq.
1, July 3, 2009 at 11:46 am
Anonymously Yours:
“Is it Tuesday already? But then again it feels like Friday and I know its not.”
You apparently don’t know what “see you next Tuesday” means in lady-speak.
Try saying it slowly and see if you can find the acronym.
—————
Really, you can’t leave a thread for a day around here and be sure of what you will return to.
Thanks for the heads-up. I was confused by the references to the wrong day. I’ve spent my life with women and men more plain spoken, if that’s what they thought about you that’s what they said, and I needed the instructions you provided to discern the hidden message. Silly me.
Kind of a sad thread devolution.
Lotta,
It’s amazing how much more I enjoy this blog once I realized what exchanges I should just not read.
Kind of a sad thread devolution.
–
Not at all, in fact, precisely the opposite. It’s something that needed saying long ago. I just don’t happen to like the actual word, however I absolutely recognize the affliction when I see it.
You also weren’t here last year, LK…
‘You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time’.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 – 1865)
ah, I love it when progressives fall to pieces. internecine warfare is good, keeps the opposition off balance and thinking about other things.
But I must say (and I know no one cares about my opinion, but I cannot help myself) that Buddha is Laughing went way out of his way to make peace and did it very well and with much humility and empathy. I was rather taken aback when Patty C snubbed his hand of friendship/olive branch. Had a friend supplicated himself thus I would have been deeply touched and immediately mended fences, recognizing the value he placed in my friendship and more importantly the value he placed in me as an individual.
Patty C must not have, based on her response, an ounce of human compassion or regard for other people.
IS,
“ah, I love it when progressives fall to pieces. internecine warfare is good, keeps the opposition off balance and thinking about other things.”
One should not mistake a single villager setting themselves ablaze as warfare. Just as one should not mistake tangential for divided. Patty and I still share many common political goals I suspect. That we won’t be talking about them to each other anymore is of no consequence. We’ll both still continue to talk to others about those issues. Your incorporation of a tangential personal issue as somehow being “internecine warfare” into your clearly political narrative, especially after the opening sentence, betrays you again. Sure, you may just have not understood the nature of what you’d just witnessed, but your wording suggests otherwise. You’re also mistaken as to what constitutes not only a distraction (oh yes, many of us can multitask) but mistaken about what makes effective distraction towards a political end (here’s a hint: this ain’t it). You made a faux pas and sought traction where there was no foothold. Machiavelli would give you an F on that assignment. Sorry.
Wouldn’t you want to be an Original Turlee too? Too bad, some have no sense of decency and or loyalty and even reign in kicking dust in your face when they feel that you are down.
But we do have some good trolls here, I think maybe, not sure.
BIL:
F for observation/interpratation. I had no alterior motives.
You dont like what I have to say I dont like what you have to say. I was commenting on a purely human level to your response to Patty C. On a human level I was surprised that she would respond as she did and that you would make such an effort.
You get an A for humanity however.
lottakatz
Surely you’re not blaming me for the devolution of the thread.
I was simply pained by AY’s apparent ignorance of the phrase.
Jim Byrne:
“Yes Bob, I do remember playing with “JARTS”.
A couple of beers, and the resultant wet fingers, turned this into an ancient game of spear catching.”
When you recalled lawn darts, did you have one of those “WHAT WERE WE THINKING?” moments?
I sure as hell did.
Bob Esq,
Do you have any funny fireworks story’s to go with the Jarts?
IS,
Then I shall take the compliment in the spirit in which it was offered. Thank you but I was only doing what seemed right in a situation that ideally would not be. Buddha (the real one) teaches us that right thought and good intention informs right speech and conduct on the path to enlightenment. Despite the aspersions of some, as a philosophical Buddhist, I do keep his teachings in mind. That’s all I was doing.